SUMMER 2016 ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY SEMINAR ARUN DEBRAY JULY 28, 2016 Contents 1. Separability, Varieties and Rational Maps: 5/16/161 2. Proper Morphisms: 5/19/166 3. Dimension: 5/23/16 10 4. Codimension One: 5/26/16 12 5. Regularity: 5/30/16 14 6. An Algebraic Interlude: 6/1/16 15 7. More Regularity and Smoothness: 6/2/16 17 8. Quasicoherent Sheaves: 6/6/16 20 9. Coherent Sheaves: 6/9/16 23 10. Line Bundles: 6/13/16 24 11. Effective Cartier Divisors and Closed Subschemes: 6/16/16 27 12. Quasicoherent Sheaves on Projective Schemes: 6/20/16 30 13. Finite Type Quasicoherent Sheaves on Projective Schemes: 6/23/16 33 14. Pushforwards and Pullbacks of Quasicoherent Sheaves: 6/27/16 34 15. Relative Spec and Proj: 7/11/16 37 16. Nice Results About Curves: 7/14/16 41 17. Cechˇ Cohomology: 7/18/16 43 18. Cechˇ Cohomology, II: 7/21/16 46 19. Curves: 7/25/16 48 20. Elliptic and Hyperelliptic Curves: 7/28/16 51 1. Separability, Varieties and Rational Maps: 5/16/16 Today's lecture was given by Tom Oldfield, on the first half of chapter 10. This seminar has a website, located at https://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/toldfield/Seminars/Algebraicgeometryreading.html. The first half of Chapter 10 is about separated morphisms and varieties; it only took us 10 chapters! Vakil writes that he was very conflicted about leaving a proper treatment of algebraic varieties, a cornerstone of classical algebraic geometry, to so late in the notes. But from a modern perspective, our hands are tied: varieties are defined in terms of properties, which means building those properties out of other properties and out of the large amount of technology you need for modern algebraic geometry. With that technology out of the way, here we are. One of these properties is separability. Let π : X ! Y be a morphism of schemes; then, the diagonal is the induced morphism δπ : X ! X ×Y X defined by x 7! (x; x); this maps into the fiber product because it 1 fits into the diagram X 1X δπ $ $ X ×Y X / X (1.1) p2 1X p1 π # π X / Y: Here, p1 nad p2 are the projections onto the first and second components, respectively, and 1X is the identity map on X. The diagonal has a few nice properties. Suppose V ⊂ Y is open, and U; U 0 ⊂ π−1(V ) are open subsets of X. 0 −1 −1 0 Then, U ×V U = p1 (U) \ p2 (U ): we constructed fiber products such that they send open embeddings to ∼ 0 ∼ 0 ∼ 0 ∼ 0 intersections. In particular, if U = Spec A, U = Spec A , and V = Spec B are affine, U ×V U = Spec(A⊗B A ). −1 0 −1 −1 −1 0 0 Therefore δπ (U ×V U ) = δπ (p1 (U) \ p2 (U )) = U \ U . That is, the diagonal turns intersections into fiber products. This argument feels like it takes place in Set, but goes through word-for-word for schemes. Definition 1.2. A morphism π : X ! Y of schemes is a locally closed embedding if it factors as π = π1 ◦ π2, where π2 is a closed embedding and π1 is an open embedding. Proposition 1.3. For any π : X ! Y , δπ is locally closed. ∼ Proof. Let fVig be an affine open cover of Y , so Vi = Spec Bi for each B, and Ui = fUijg be an affine open cover −1 0 0 of π (Vi) for each i. Then, fUij ×Vi Uij : i; j; j g covers X ×Y X. More interestingly, fUij ×Vi Uij : i; jg covers −1 −1 −1 −1 Im(δπ): this is because if x 2 Uij, then δπ(x) 2 p1 (Uij) and in p2 (Uij), and p1 (Uij)\p2 (Uij) = Uij ×Vi Uij. −1 Now, it suffices to show that δπ : δπ (Uij ×Vi Uij) ! Uij ×Vi Uij is closed, since the property of being a ∼ closed embedding is affine-local. Since each Uij = Spec Aij is affine, then it suffices to understand what's happening ring-theoretically: the diagonal map corresponds to the ring morphism Aij ⊗Vi Aij ! Aij sending a ⊗ a0 7! aa0. This is clearly surjective, which is exactly the criterion for a morphism of schemes to be a closed embedding. Corollary 1.4. If X and Y are affine schemes, then δπ is a closed embedding. −1 0 ∼ 0 Corollary 1.5. If ∆ denotes Im(δπ), then for any open V ⊂ Y and U ⊂ π (V ), ∆ \ (U ×V U ) = U \ U is a homeomorphism of topological spaces. This follows because a locally closed embedding is homeomorphic onto its image. These will all be super useful once we define separability, which we'll do now. Definition 1.6. A morphism π : X ! Y is separated if δπ : X ! X ×Y X is a closed embedding. This is weird upon first glance: why do we look at the diagonal to understand things about a morphism? The answer is that the diagonal has nice category-theoretic properties, so we can prove some useful properties by doing a few diagram chases. More geometrically, separability corresponds to the Hausdorff property in topological spaces, and there's a criterion for this in terms of the diagonal. Proposition 1.7. If T is a topological space, then T is Hausdorff iff the diagonal morphism T ! T × T is a closed embedding. Equivalently, the image ∆ ⊂ T × T is a closed subspace. Remark. Since schemes are topological spaces, you might think this proves separated schemes are Hausdorff, but this is untrue: fiber products of schemes are generally not fiber products of underlying spaces, and therefore closed embeddings of schemes are not the same as closed embeddings of their underlying spaces. Separability is a nice property, and is good to have. But like Hausdorfness, we generally won't need to use schemes that aren't separated. Example 1.8. 2 (1) By Corollary 1.4, all morphisms of affine schemes are separated. (2) If we can cover X ×Y X by the sets Uij ×Vi Uij (with these sets as in the proof of Proposition 1.3), then π is separated. 1 (3) For a counterexample, let X = A(0;0) be the \line with two origins" over a field k. This isn't a separated scheme: the diagonal is a \line with four origins," and these cannot be separated topologically: every open set containing one contains all of them. So take one affine piece of X, which contains exactly one origin, and therefore its image ought to contain all four, but it doesn't, so X ! Spec k isn't closed. This might feel a little imprecise, but one can make it fully rigorous. We want separated morphisms to be nice: we'd like them to be preserved under base change and composition, and we'd like locally closed embeddings to be separated. Proposition 1.9. Locally closed embeddings are separated. This is the only example of a hands-on proof of a property; it's not hard, but the rest will be less abstract and easier. First, though, let's reframe it: Proposition 1.10. Any monomorphism of schemes is separated.1 Proof. By point (2) of Example 1.8, it suffices to prove that fiber products Uij ×Vi Uij cover X ×Y X for our affine covers. So let's look at the fiber diagram (1.1) again; it tells us that π ◦ p1 = π ◦ p2. But since π is a monomorphism, then p1 = p2, so for any z 2 X ×Y Z, p1(z) = p2(z); call this point xz. Then, if xz 2 Uij, −1 −1 z 2 p (Uij) and z 2 p2 (Uij), and their intersection is the fiber product. Since locally closed embeddings are monomorphisms, Proposition 1.9 follows as a corollary. At this point, we can define varieties, and Vakil does so, but can't do anything with them, so we'll come back to them in a little bit. n Proposition 1.11. If A is a ring, PA ! Spec A is separated. n The idea of the proof is to compute: we already know a cover of PA by n + 1 affine schemes, and can check that the induced map on rings is surjective. The following proposition gives us an important geometric property of separability. Proposition 1.12. If A is a ring and X ! Spec A is separated, then for any affine open subsets U; V ⊂ X, U \ V is also affine. Proof. The diagonal is a closed embedding, so δ : U × V ! U ×A V is also a closed embedding. Therefore U × V is isomorphic to a closed subscheme of an affine scheme, and therefore is affine. It's surprising how useful these arguments with the diagonal are: we got a useful and nontrivial result in one line! In general, you can prove a weirdly large amount of things by factoring them through the diagonal. In fact, le'ts use it to define another property. Definition 1.13. A morphism π : X ! Y is quasiseparated if δπ is quasicompact. This isn't the same as the other definition we were given, that for all affine V ⊂ Y and U; U 0 ⊂ π−1(V ), U \ U 0 is quasicompact. But it turns out to be equivalent. Proposition 1.14. π : X ! Y is quasiseparated in the sense of Definition 1.13 iff it's quasiseparated in the sense we defined previously. The proof is a diagram chase involving the \magic diagram" for fiber products.